If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

John O. Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, is a leading contender for the CIA job if he wants it, officials said. If Brennan goes ahead with his plan to leave government, Michael J. Morell, the agency’s acting director, is the prohibitive favorite to take over permanently. Officials cautioned that the White House discussions are still in the early stages and that no decisions have been made.

Petraeus’s resignation last week after revelations of an extramarital affair have complicated what was already an intricate puzzle to reassemble the administration’s national security and diplomatic pieces for Obama’s second term.

When John Kerry stood in front of the Democratic National Convention and said, “Reporting for Duty,” he was trying to create the image of a strong military leader, so veterans will naturally pay close attention to his military record. When I first heard about John Kerry, a Vietnam War hero running for President, I started listening closely to the rhetoric expounded by both his supporters and his detractors. The statements coming from both sides were so contradictory and confusing that I decided to do some research. My research eventually took me to a website that had the complete transcript of the testimony that John Kerry gave to the Fulbright Committee in April 1971, and I read every word (for a complete transcript of this testimony, go to: www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp). What I read was disturbing, to say the least. I heartily recommend that every American read this historical document before you cast your vote for President in this national election. It will help you understand why I and other Vietnam Veterans who think as I do cannot support John Kerry.

Here are some key excerpts from that testimony:

Kerry describes atrocities that he “heard of from others” and disgraces an entire generation of Vietnam Veterans by saying, “I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” War is hell, and terrible, unspeakable things happen during times of war. The Vietnam War was no different. Atrocities occurred; there is no question about that. Some of them were highly publicized (the My Lai Massacre is one terrible example) as they well should have been. War is no excuse for committing crimes, but due to the primitive nature of war, crimes do happen, although I believe that they were the rare exception during the Vietnam War, rather than “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command” as John Kerry described it to the Fullbright Committee. War crimes have happened in the past (in all wars) and they will happen again (in future wars). In my own personal experience, however, those terrible things usually happen when a unit is unfortunate enough to be led by a weak leader.

He went on to state: “I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.” Kerry was saying that if I were sitting there I would have said exactly what he was about to say. After reading the rest of the transcript, I say to you now, “No way!” No way would I ever have said anything like that. I served as a Marine Infantry Officer in combat for 13 months during some of the heaviest fighting of the Vietnam War. I have many friends who served as Marine Corps leaders: squad leaders, fire team leaders, platoon commanders, company commanders, battalion commanders, men who served as combat leaders at all levels of the chain of command, who led thousands and thousands of US Marines during combat operations that covered the entire six years we spent there, and I believe none of them would ever have said anything like what Kerry was about to say. He did not represent us then, and he does not represent us today.

In an attempt to find legitimacy for his accusations, Kerry goes on to use the following words to charge that the US violated the Geneva Conventions as a matter of policy: “We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country…. the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.” Were enemy POW’s tortured or killed by American soldiers? Perhaps in isolated incidents where unit leadership temporarily lost control, but this kind of behavior was never “accepted policy” in any unit that I served in or heard of. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A live POW could provide us with critical intelligence, and our Marines were instructed to deliver POW’s, unharmed, to the rear areas for interrogations. Sometimes they were even rewarded for doing so by being given a couple of days of “In Country R & R” for delivering a live POW to the rear. Did the US military use the strategies of “free fire zones, harassment & interdiction fire, bombings and search and destroy missions?” Yes, we did. These are sound military strategies, and they were very effective in our efforts to seek out and destroy our enemies. Did we use those tactics in any fashion that was designed to violate the Geneva Conventions and to kill or maim innocent civilians? No, we absolutely did not.

Reading this specific charge by Kerry, that the use of “free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, and search and destroy missions”, which were all tactics that my Marine Corps unit used extensively, was “in violation of the Geneva Conventions” was very disturbing to me, to say the least. So, once again, I did the research. I was able to find a website that is sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists which contains both the full text and a complete index of The Geneva Conventions (www.genevaconventions.org/). After searching this detailed database and confirming for myself the acceptability of “Search and Destroy Missions”, “Harassment Interdiction Fires” and “Free Fire Zones”, I was disturbed to see that Kerry twisted words to capture attention and to dramatize his agenda.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit any “indiscriminate attack,” no matter what type of strategy or tactic that it is contained within. “Indiscriminate attacks” are those which are not directed at a specific military objective or those which use a method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4) All of these strategies and tactics were regularly employed by American military forces during the Vietnam War, there is no question about that. However, none of these strategies and tactics violated the letter or even the spirit of The Geneva Conventions because American military units went way out of their way to ensure that none of these missions were indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Those people who were unfortunate enough to live inside a free fire zone knew full well that they were in danger, and we took great pains to make sure they stayed out of harm’s way. No H & I fires were ever planned for locations that we knew contained civilians. No bombing mission was planned or carried out on civilian targets. No search and destroy mission was ever planned for a village or town with civilians using rules of engagement that allowed us to simply kill everyone in the area and sort out the bodies later.

As a Vietnam combat veteran who spent four months in “the bush” Kerry knew that these very effective tactics were commonplace during the Vietnam War. I believe that he was not at all concerned with the accuracy of his statements, but was mainly interested in the emotional impact he would make when he used those words in front of the Fulbright Committee. I must admit that he was very successful, because he called attention to himself and, shortly thereafter, he successfully ran for congress. The rest is history.

Kerry represented himself as speaking for all Vietnam veterans, which he did not. Kerry said that we committed war crimes and other crimes on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of our leaders, which we did not. Kerry said that the US Military violated the Geneva Conventions as a matter of policy, which we did not. These were popular myths at the time, so it was very easy for everyone who heard them coming from this “young war hero just back from the front lines” to believe them. John Kerry is having a hard time with me today because he chose, in 1971, to distance himself from his fellow Vietnam Veterans, and now today, as a politician, he is touting himself as a “highly decorated veteran.” He chose, in 1971, in a very public forum, to label my generation of veterans as “murderers, rapists and war criminals” and now he wants to take credit for being one of us? Well, as far as I’m concerned he can’t have it both ways.

Over the years I have had the opportunity to meet and talk to many heroes who fought for our country in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and in other parts of the world; they include many Purple Heart recipients, and many who earned and proudly wear the Bronze Star, the Silver Star, the Navy Cross, and the Medal of Honor. None of them want to make a big deal over those awards; every one of them will just look at you and say, “Hey, I was just doing my job. Anyone would have done what I did under those circumstances.” They don’t understand what all the fuss is about, and they really don’t understand why anyone would want to use his citations in any way, political or otherwise (as in demonstrations and elections). But I don’t challenge Kerry for his medals or his record. His medals are his medals. He got them and it is his right to wear them.

For me, this issue is very simple, and it is very personal. John Kerry called me a war criminal. He said that I (and my fellow veterans) committed atrocities every day; that I murdered, raped, pillaged and plundered, and that I did all these terrible things with the full knowledge and support of my leaders. I did not. John Kerry represents to me the personification of the “ugly politician,” a person who will say anything and do anything to gain power, and I cannot in good conscience vote for that kind of person.

It's official....the Empty Suit's administration, having reached the bottom of the barrel of people for cabinet appointees, have now kicked the barrel out of the way and have started digging where it stood.

Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf